I can't stay out of this... no way!

A couple of points, after first admitting that I am not privy to the full text that you are drawing from, nor the point of view that Jambo is drawing from.

Ryan writes some long and convoluted analogy to Jambo's reference to the WPA and the BLM, and concludes his rant with:

"Now with all that, 60 years from now, when my grandson is arguing with some Obama apologists, should my heir concede the argument that Obama's Economic Stimulus was a success? "

I'm not sure I see the association with the WPA or the BLM, but if you are harping on the TVA as a primary source of cheap power for the Federal government's efforts to further the war effort, the analogy is very bad. The TVA is the ONLY Federally owned corporation that has ALWAYS shown a substantial profit, year in and year out, since it went online in 1933. You can make your case about such government-owned corps as Amtrack, or the Federal Reserve, or any other corporation where the controlling interest is owned by the Feds... but you can't deny that fact... the TVA has worked and made the Feds money since DAY ONE. Can you point to an organization within the "stimulus umbrella" that can say the same for the next 60 years? I doubt it.

No, the TVA wasn't designed with "winning the war" in mind, but I think the point Jambo was making was that the institution played a vital role in US success in the years following its inception, beginning in 1934. That, I think, is undeniable.

Furthermore, Ryan writes:

" These programs FAILED at their stated goal - to beat back the Great Depression and high unemployment numbers. "

Again, I offer the TVA as proof against your stated point. The TVA employed an average of 28,000 skilled and unskilled workers per year over the course of 27 years, with the numbers falling gradually after 1960 every year... while showing a PROFIT (can't stress that enough) every year it was operating. In the first 4 years of the TVA's existence, it took the average family's annual wage of $650 all the way up to $1250... income they could spend as they liked, and reinvest into the economy by buying and building homes, cars, food and appliances (at least until the war came to the States).

We can rehash this argument again and again if you so choose, but the "depression" (negative growth numbers in more than 4 consecutive quarters) ended by the time TVA was a functioning program... so those 28k and more jobs must have at least contributed to that recovery. Unemployment remained high... no one argues that point, but the free-fall depression was over, and the national economy was GROWING each and every year but ONE (1937) until the recession of 1949-50.

You keep harping on and on and on about the "depression era" and how people were still out of work and unhappy with the state of the country and the economy until WWII brought our efforts to recover to "completion". Yes, after '33-'34, people were still out of work and money was not being spent on luxury items that might have forced growth at a higher rate, and some of that can be blamed on artificially high tax rates and an artificially deflated dollar... but I think a lot of the "depression" was actual FEAR of the nightmare returning to the homes of John Q. and Suzy Jane Public.

For the 4 years after 1929, an average of 2 out of every 3 banks FAILED... unable to make good on deposits or dividends to shareholders. 66%, man! That is a HUGE amount of Joe Average's money simply evaporating into thin air, and I DO think that had an effect on how the public viewed trusting their money to private banks and loan companies without some kind of government guaranty to safeguard their investment. Thus, the FDIC acts, the expansion of the Federal Reserve powers, and the greater regulation of the banking and stock market industries. Was this a real and measurable increase in the size and scope of government? Absolutely. Why am I defending it?

Because the people DEMANDED the changes. Plain and simple. Can you HONESTLY tell me that there wasn't a clear and unambiguous mandate from the majority saying "We want assurances that this won't repeat!" If there wasn't a mandate, then why did FDR WIN four national elections by margins that were as big as they were all four times?

When an economy tanks as totally as ours did in Oct of '29 (and continued to tank for the next 36 months), people lose faith in the institutions that fail, especially when those institutions take their money with them down the toilet. I don't think people today (especially Obama) appreciate just how BAD the Crash of '29 was... the value of every dollar in circulation in Sept of 1929 was worth $0.44 LESS 30 days later, and that vaue would continue to fall for the next three years to as low as $0.62 LESS than the vaue of Set '29. This wasn't the worst depression the US ever had, but we haven't had one even half as bad SINCE 1934, have we?

More later... I'm being forced to do work.